User talk:Ekraft14/sandbox
Media and Bureaucracy in US[edit]
Add hostory section[edit]
===Expand positives and add in later===
Negatives of media and bureaucracy
Demands instant analysis from the government[edit]
[1] The media and the public demand information as soon as possible, so bureaucrats have less time to analyze situations and make decisions than ever before. This can be seen as a positive or negative phenomenon. On one hand, the government has less time to think, which could lead to a hasty decision without reading and processing all the information at hand. However, the media cuts out the lag time between communication with governments that are far away physically. These leaders are able to instantaneously get their message out and receive a response within hours, as opposed to days.
Serves as an emotional inhibitor[edit]
It is possible that the media influences the public's opinion of national affairs because they bring situations that are happening a far right into a family's living room. Where someone would have previously heard about the terrors that occur overseas, they now get a graphic, up-close image of what is going on at that moment. People are also more exposed to the harsh realities of war than they have been in the past. The government must justify conflict in such a way that the public will still support it even after seeing its impact on live television.
Creates possible operational security threats[edit]
The majority of individuals in the media are not trained on how military operations are carried out and do not know the potential risks of exposing certain information. The media often asks questions about details for a military strike, that would pose a huge security risk if an officer were to answer these questions directly. Also, just by filming and photographing areas where military bases and equipment is located, the media is potentially giving the enemy a heads up on where to attack.
No guarantee the media is showing 100% of story[edit]
Bias is always present in the stories that are covered. Every individual reporter or news outlet has an opinion about a conflict that is occurring. That bias can be used to influence the public's opinion about the situation to varying degrees. During the Iraq invasion of 2003 and new outlets were accused having a pro-war bias, particularly Fox News and CBS.[2] In 2003 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) conducted a study of the pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks, they found that pro-war views appeared overwhelmingly more frequent, with CBS and Fox the least likely to provide critical commentary.[3] According to a university of Maryland study 57% of mainstream media views believed Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 or had funded Al-Qaeda. 69% believed Saddam Hussein planned 9/11. 22% believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. A PIPA study further explained that 80% of Fox News viewers had one or more of the beliefs, 71% of viewers for CBS and 27% watching NPR/PBS. [4] [5]There are concerns of the way the media carries their functions as an institution which is trusted to convey political and special events in a value-free and neutral manner.[6] There is a bias in creating negative images. For example, the media is held responsible for the deterioration of family values in the U.S. The media still remains the major force in shaping the attitudes and perceptions of the people and their political leaders.The mainstream media has been criticized for focusing on optimistic events like toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in Firdos Square, and under-reporting less favourable news like the 4,425 U.S. soldiers kills with 32,223 wounded[7], or the Iraqi civilian casualties which range from 112,000-123,000[8], with some estimates being much higher.President Bush (2000) had issued bans on flag-draped coffins containing deceased military personnel, it remained so until 2009 when newly elected President Barack Obama asked Robert Gates the defense secretary to review the government's policy that ban the media ban from covering coffins returning home, in February Gates stated the ban will be lifted and each soldiers' next of kin will be able to give the media permission.[9] The New York Times' investigation discovered the pentagon gave special information to some new analysts and persuaded them to speak favorably of the Iraq War.[10]
Possible Positives[edit]
The Media is so influential that it's often considered the Fouth Estate alongside the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch, providing another system of checks and balances. <ref>Denis McQuail. 2003. Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. Oxford: Oxford University Press<ref> The Media also provides the public with information, this is especially true during the election periods when potential cadets attempt elevate their name recognition and express their policies. Media also provides a open forum to the public, allowing the spread of new ideas and monitoring of public opinion.
- ^ "Policymakers decry the absence of quiet time to deliberate choices, reach private agreements, and mold the public’s understanding."
- ^ A NATION AT WAR: THE NEWS MEDIA; Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television Journalism by Jim Rutenberg, nytimes.com
- ^ The Press and Public Misperceptions About the Iraq War
- ^ "perceptions, Media, and the Iraq War." The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll The American Public On International Issues
- ^ Kalantari, Behrooz. "Media and the Bureaucracy in the United States." Government Public Relations: A Reader (2007).
- ^ Kalantari, Behrooz. "Media and the Bureaucracy in the United States." Government Public Relations: A Reader (2007).
- ^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
- ^ Civilian deaths from violence in 2003–2011". Iraq Body Count. January 2, 2012. Retrieved 2015-04-11.
- ^ Mount, Mike (6 April 2009). "Ban lifted, media witness solemn return of fallen service member". CNN. Retrieved 2015-04-11.
- ^ Barstow, David (April 20, 2008). "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand". The New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2015